Submittal/Approval Letter

Transcription

1 Submittal/Approval Letter To: Patrick Muench, P.E. Date: May 1, 2017 Turnpike Design Engineer Financial Project ID: & New Construction ( ) RRR ( ) Federal Aid : Not Applicable Project Name: Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM State Road : 91 Co./Sec./Sub.: 94/470/000 Begin Project MP: End Project MP: Full Federal Oversight: Yes ( ) No ( ) Request for: Design Exception ( ), Design Variation ( ) Community Aesthetic Feature: Conceptual ( ), Final ( ) Re-submittal: Yes ( ) No( ) Original Ref# - - Requested for the following element(s): ( ) Design Speed ( ) Lane Width ( ) Shoulder Width ( ) Cross Slope ( ) Design Loading Structural Capacity ( ) Vertical Clearance ( ) Maximum Grade ( ) Stopping Sight Distance ( ) Superelevation ( ) Horizontal Curve Radius ( ) Other This project consists of resurfacing and safety improvements for the Florida s Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) from MM to MM , County Mile Post County Mile Post , in St. Lucie County ( ) for a total length of miles. The main objective of the project is to extend the life of the existing pavement through milling and resurfacing of the existing northbound and southbound travel lanes, inside and outside shoulders, and the paved median openings. Safety improvements will include construction of ground-in rumble strips, repair of all guardrail openings for maintenance access and adjustment or replacement of guardrail as necessary, cross slope correction to meet governing criteria, shoulder drop-off correction along the edge of pavement, replacement of noncompliant signing within the project limits, bridge deck repair at the L-20 and Angle Road/Belcher canal bridges, bridge railing retrofit at the Picos Road, CR 68, and Minute Maid Road overpass bridges, and repairs to the existing box culverts and farm crossings. SR 91 is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial Expressway and is part of the National Highway System (NHS) and the State Highway System (SHS). SR 91 is also a Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Corridor with a Limited Access Right-of-Way of 400 feet. The corridor has a posted and design speed of 70 MPH. The existing typical section is a four-lane, divided, rural facility with two 12 ft. lanes, an 8 ft. inside shoulder with 4 ft. paved, and a 12 ft. outside shoulder with 10 ft. paved, in each direction. The northbound and southbound roadways are separated by a 40-ft. median. An existing median double-faced guardrail with rub rail, predominantly located adjacent to the southbound inside shoulder, runs along the median within the project limits. In some locations, such as the segment between the Belcher Canal and L-20 Canal bridges, standard guardrail is located adjacent to the median shoulders and the outside shoulders for the northbound and southbound directions. There are seven bridges within the project limits, four of which are a part of SR 91 Mainline. The SR 91 northbound and southbound travel ways have separate bridges at the Belcher canal and the L-20 canal crossings. Structure Nos and cross Angle Road and Belcher Canal, and Structure Nos and cross over the L-20 Canal. The remaining bridges on the project are the three overpasses across SR 91 at Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ). The existing vertical clearances at the Picos Road crossing over SR 91 (Structure No ) of 15-8¼ on the northbound side, and /8 on the southbound side, do not meet the governing AASHTO or FDOT criteria. In addition, the Minute Maid Road overpass (Structure No ) across southbound SR 91 has an existing vertical clearance of /8 which also is below the minimum AASHTO or FDOT vertical clearance requirements. As required by Table of the Turnpike Plans Preparation and Practices Handbook (TPPPH), the vertical clearances were evaluated against the Plans Preparation Manual (PPM) Chapter 25 requirements for a final determination whether a design exception is needed, however, PPM Chapter 25 does not provide any additional criteria regarding vertical clearance. Therefore, in accordance with TPPPH Table , a Design Exception is required for these bridges to remain in place without any improvements.

2 The County Road 68 overpass (Structure No ) has sufficient vertical clearance to meet AASHTO and FDOT minimum vertical clearance requirements of Three of the SR 91 mainline bridges (Structure Nos , , and ) are compliant with FDOT vertical clearance requirement of 16-0, as well as the AASHTO requirement of 14-0, for local roads passing under bridges. With an existing vertical clearance of 15-9 ¾, the northbound SR 91 mainline bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ) is compliant with the AASHTO requirement; however, it does not meet the FDOT minimum vertical clearance criterion. Therefore, a Design Variation, which has been applied for under a separate cover, will be required to maintain the bridge as is, without any improvements. The reconstruction of the facilities at Picos Road and Minute Maid Road to achieve a vertical clearance meeting the FDOT new construction criteria will increase the construction cost significantly as well as impacting the construction duration and schedule. Furthermore, FTE s customers would be impacted by the extended construction duration. Increasing the vertical clearance will negatively impact the budget and the schedule, however, since there are no documented collisions with the referenced structures, the benefit/cost ratio for providing the improvements will be zero. No quantifiable benefit in terms of safety, operational performance, or level of service can be derived from implementing the improvements discussed in this report. Furthermore, maintaining the current vertical clearances will eliminate any negative impacts on environmental concerns, community considerations, budget, or schedule. Therefore, the approval of this Design Exception is requested for the two bridge crossings over SR 91 at Picos Road and Minute Maid Road to remain in place without any improvements. Recommended by: Houman Assari Houman Assari, P.E., Responsible Professional Engineer Approvals: Patrick Muench Digitally signed by Patrick Muench DN: cn=patrick Muench, o=florida Department of Transportation, ou=florida's Turnpike Enterprise, =patrick.muench@dot.state.fl.us, c=us Digitally signed by Houman Assari Date: :56:50-04'00' Date: :07:58-04'00' Date Patrick Muench, P.E., Turnpike Design Engineer 05/22/17 Date 5/1/2017 Russell D Snyder Digitally signed by Russell D Snyder DN: c=us, o=identrust ACES Business Representative, ou=florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, cn=russell D Snyder, =A01097C FEE2E1C900002D8F Date: :09:25-04'00' Date Russ Snyder, P.E., Turnpike Structures Design Engineer 5/11/17 N/A Date N/A Date Michael Shepard, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer State Structures Design Engineer N/A Date N/A Date State Chief Engineer FHWA Division Administrator

3 Request for FTE Design Exceptions & Variations Checklist Date: 05/01/2017 District: Florida's Turnpike Enterprise Project Name: Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM Project Section Exemption BMP: BMP: EMP: EMP: FPID: & Requested Control Element(s): Design Speed* New Construction RRR Horizontal Curve Radius Lane Width Vertical Clearance** Superelevation Shoulder Widths Maximum Grade Stopping Sight Distance Other *Requires supplementary review (i.e. Planning/Structures/etc) **Requires Utility Accommodation Manual (UAM) Exception Submittals N/A Design Loading Structural Capacity* Cross Slopes Submittal/Approval Letter (independent file from report) Short description of project, applicable criteria and reason for variation request Applicable signature fields, names, and titles listed Page #/ NA S/A Letter Design Exception/Variation Report Report Cover Project Title, FPID, digital sign, seal and date Project description General project information, typical section, begin/end milepost, county section number Include Work Mix, To From, Objectives, Obstacles and Schedule. Description of the variation element and applicable criteria (AASHTO and Department value or standard) Detailed explanation of why the criteria or standard cannot be complied with or is not applicable Description of any proposed value for project and why it is appropriate Amount and character of traffic using the facility Description of the anticipated impact on Operations, Adjacent Sections, Level Of Service, Safety, Long and Short Term Effects Is the variation temporary or permanent? Description of the anticipated Cumulative Effects A plan view or aerial photo of the variation location Showing right of way lines, and property lines of adjacent property. A photo of the area. Typical section or cross section of variation/exception location The milepost and station location of the variation/exception Any related work programmed or in future work plans 1 Cover 1, 2, 3 4, E A D B A w/ MM 4 Page 1

4 The Project Schedule Management (PSM) Project Schedule Activities submitted < Phase I Phase I Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV > Phase IV Letting: All mitigating efforts An explanation of what if any associated existing or future Limitations as a result of public or legal commitments. Description and explanation of any practical alternatives, the selected treatment and why. Comments on the most recent 5 year crash history Including all pertinent crash reports Is the location of the variation on the High Crash List? Description of the anticipated Cost (Social and to the Department Benefit/Cost) Summary Conclusions H Page #/ NA 6 4, 5 5, 6 7 Summary description of included support documentation such as: Location map or description Typical section Aerial or Photo logs when they best illustrate the element issues Crash History and analysis Plan sheets in the area of the variation elements Profiles in the area of vertical alignment variation elements Tabulation of pole offsets for horizontal clearance variation Applicable Signed and Sealed Engineering Support Documents For the specified conditions the following additional documentation is required: For design speed on FIHS/SIS Provide typical sections at mid blocks and at intersections. For lane width Provide locations of alternative routes that meet criteria Proposal for handling drainage Proposed signing and pavement markings For shoulder width Proposal for handling stalled vehicles Proposal for handling drainage For bridge width Plan view of the approaching roadways Existing bridge plans (these may be submitted electronically) For a bridge with a design inventory load rating less than 1.0 Written evaluation and recommendation by the Office of Maintenance is required Load rating calculations for the affected structure For vertical clearance Locations of alternative routes that meet criteria A, B, D, F N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 Page 2

5 For cross slope Proposal for handling drainage Details on how the cross slope impacts intersections For conditions that may adversely affect the roadway s capacity Provide the comments on compatibility of the design and operation with the adjacent sections Effects on capacity (proposed criteria vs. AASHTO) using an acceptable capacity analysis procedure Calculate reduction for design year, level of service For superelevation Provide the side friction factors for the curve for each lane of different cross slope at the PC of the curve, the point of maximum cross slope, and the PT of the curve using the following equation. f = (V 2 15Re)/(V 2 e+15r) For areas with crash histories or when a benefit to cost analysis is requested Provide a time value analysis between the benefit to society quantified in dollars and the costs to society quantified in dollars over the life of the Exception/Variation. Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP) Historical Crash Method (HCM) Page #/ NA N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 3

6 Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM St. Lucie County, Florida FPID s and Contract C9R86 VERTICAL CLEARANCE DESIGN EXCEPTION Prepared For: Florida Department of Transportation Florida s Turnpike Enterprise MAY 2017 Prepared By: Propel Engineering, Inc. Digitally signed by Houman Assari Houman Assari Date: :54:34-04'00' 6685 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite 205 Responsible Engineer: Greenacres, FL Houman Assari, PE Certification of Authorization No State of Florida, Professional Engineer Vendor No. F License No This item has been electronically signed and sealed by Houman Assari, PE on 05/01/2017 using a Digital Signature. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

7 Table of Contents 1.0 Project Description Description of the Design Exception Design Criteria American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Proposed Criteria Justification Operational s Crash History Analysis Costs Right-of-Way Impacts Community Impacts Environmental Impacts Mitigation Alternative Route Summary Conclusions... 7 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: Location Map Typical Sections As-Built Plans Photo Log Traffic Data Crash History Cost Estimate Project Schedule

8 Vertical Clearance Design Exception FPID Nos: & Project Description This project consists of resurfacing and safety improvements for the Florida s Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) from MM to MM , County Mile Post County Mile Post , in St. Lucie County ( ) for a total length of miles. The main objective of the project is to extend the life of the existing pavement through milling and resurfacing of the existing northbound and southbound travel lanes, inside and outside shoulders, and the paved median openings. Safety improvements will include construction of ground-in rumble strips, repair of all guardrail openings for maintenance access and adjustment or replacement of guardrail as necessary, cross slope correction to meet governing criteria, shoulder drop-off correction along the edge of pavement, replacement of non-compliant signing within the project limits, bridge deck repair at the L-20 and Angle Road/Belcher canal bridges, bridge railing retrofit at the Picos Road, CR 68, and Minute Maid Road overpass bridges, and repairs to the existing box culverts and farm crossings. SR 91 is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial Expressway and is part of the National Highway System (NHS) and the State Highway System (SHS). SR 91 is also a Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Corridor with a Limited Access Right-of-Way of 400 feet. The corridor has a posted and design speed of 70 MPH. The existing typical section is a four-lane, divided, rural facility with two 12 ft. lanes, an 8 ft. inside shoulder with 4 ft. paved, and a 12 ft. outside shoulder with 10 ft. paved, in each direction. The northbound and southbound roadways are separated by a 40- ft. median. An existing median double-faced guardrail with rub rail, predominantly located adjacent to the southbound inside shoulder, runs along the median within the project limits. In some locations, such as the segment between the Belcher Canal and L-20 Canal bridges, standard guardrail is located adjacent to the median shoulders and the outside shoulders for the northbound and southbound directions. The project is currently scheduled for letting on 01/09/2018, with a production date of 10/06/2017. There are currently no major obstacles to meeting this schedule. The project schedule is included in Appendix H of this document. 2.0 Description of the Design Exception There are seven bridges within the project limits, four of which are a part of SR 91 Mainline. The SR 91 northbound and southbound travel ways have separate bridges at the Belcher canal and the L-20 canal crossings. Structure Nos and cross Angle Road and Belcher Canal, and Structure Nos and cross over the L-20 Canal. The remaining bridges on the project are the three overpasses across SR 91 at Picos Road (Structure No ), County Road 68 (Structure No ), and Minute Maid Road (Structure No ). Based on information gathered from field reviews, the design survey for the project, and review of the ERCAR and the as-built plans, the bridges were evaluated for compliance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Florida s Turnpike Enterprise (FTE) criteria for Vertical Clearance. The results of the evaluation have been summarized in Table 2.1. The existing vertical clearances at the Picos Road crossing over SR 91 (Structure No ) of 15-8¼ on the northbound side, and /8 on the southbound side, do not meet the governing AASHTO or FDOT criteria. In addition, the Minute Maid Road overpass (Structure No ) across southbound SR 91 has an existing vertical clearance of /8 which also is below the minimum AASHTO or FDOT vertical clearance requirements. As required by Table of the Turnpike Plans Preparation and Practices Handbook (TPPPH), the vertical clearances were evaluated against the Plans Preparation Manual (PPM) Chapter 25 requirements for a final determination whether a design exception is needed, however, PPM Chapter 25 does not provide any additional criteria regarding vertical clearance. Therefore, in accordance with TPPPH Table , a Design Exception is required for these bridges to remain in place without any improvements. The Design Exception locations have been included in Appendix A of this document. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

9 Vertical Clearance Design Exception FPID Nos: & The County Road 68 overpass (Structure No ) has sufficient vertical clearance to meet AASHTO and FDOT minimum vertical clearance requirements of Three of the SR 91 mainline bridges (Structure Nos , , and ) are compliant with FDOT vertical clearance requirement of 16-0, as well as the AASHTO requirement of 14-0, for local roads passing under bridges. With an existing vertical clearance of 15-9 ¾, the northbound SR 91 mainline bridge over Angle Road/Belcher Canal (Structure No ) is compliant with the AASHTO requirement; however, it does not meet the FDOT minimum vertical clearance criterion. Therefore, a Design Variation, which has been applied for under a separate cover, will be required to maintain the bridge as is, without any improvements. Table 2.1 Summary of Bridge Vertical Clearances Structure No. Mile Marker Road Name Minimum Required Vertical Clearance AASHTO FDOT (4) FTE Existing Vertical Clearance Recommendation Picos Road over SR 91 CR 68 over SR 91 SR 91 NB over Angle Road SR 91 SB over Angle Road SR 91 NB over Dirt Road SR 91 SB over Dirt Road Minute Maid Rd. over SR (1&2) 16-0 (1&2) 14-0 * (3) 14-0 * (3) 14-0 * (3) 14-0 * (3) 16-0 (1&2) (4) 16-2 ¾ (NB) (5) 16-2 ¼ (SB) (5) 16-0 (4) 16-1 ¼ (5) 16-6 (5) 16-6 (5) 16-5 ½ (5) 16-0 (4) 15-8 ¼ (NB) /8 (SB) 16-2 ¾ (NB) 16-2 ¼ (SB) Design Exception No Action Required 15-9 ¾ Design Variation 16-1 ¼ ½ (NB) /8 (SB) **Certified Survey Required No Action Required No Action Required Design Exception (1) AASHTO A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System (2005), Page 5 (2) AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2011), Section 8.2.9, Page 8-4 (3) AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2011), Section 5.2.3, Page 5-8 * Allowance for resurfacing required (4) FDOT Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1, Section 2.10 ** Certified survey confirming the as-built minimum vertical clearance is equal to or greater than the existing vertical clearance is required (5) FTE Turnpike Plans Preparation and Practices Handbook, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.10 Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

10 Vertical Clearance Design Exception FPID Nos: & Design Criteria 3.1 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System (2005) (AASHTO IS) Bridges and Other Structures, Vertical Clearance, Page 5: On all rural sections, the clear height of structures shall be not less than 16 ft. over the entire roadway width, including the width of paved shoulder. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2011) Chapter 8 Freeways, Section 8.2.9, Vertical Clearance: The vertical clearance to structures passing over freeways should be at least 16 ft. over the entire roadway width, including auxiliary lanes and the usable width of shoulders with consideration for future resurfacing. Chapter 5 Local Roads and Streets, Section 5.2.3, Vertical Clearance: Vertical clearance at underpasses should be at least 14 ft. over the entire roadway width, with an allowance for future resurfacing. 3.2 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Plans Preparation Manual (PPM) (January 2017) Volume 1, Section 2.10 Vertical Clearance: For any construction affecting existing roadway or railroad over roadway bridge clearances (e.g., bridge widenings or resurfacing), FDOT minimum vertical clearance is 16'-0". Turnpike Plans Preparation and Practices Handbook (TPPPH) (March 3, 2017) Volume 1, Section 2.10 Vertical Clearance: Existing vertical clearances between 16-0 and 16-6 must be maintained or increased, unless otherwise approved by the Turnpike Structures Design Engineer. 4.0 Proposed Criteria The proposed design is to allow the existing vertical clearances at Picos Road and Minute Maid Road overpasses, as identified in Table 2.1 of this document, to remain as existing. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

11 Vertical Clearance Design Exception FPID Nos: & Justification The main objective of the project is to extend the service life of the existing asphalt pavement and improve safety related features along the corridor. The proposed design provides a balance between pavement improvements and vehicular traffic operation while maintaining the safety of the traveling public. 5.1 Operational s A project Traffic Data Report was provided by FTE. The Traffic Data results were as follows: Table SR 91 Traffic Data Two-Way AADT Trucks (DDHV) Traffic Factors K STD (%) D (%) T 24 (%) DHT (%) 32,500 33,900 45, The design and posted speed within the project limits is 70 mph. The Traffic Data is included in Appendix E of this document. The substandard vertical clearance referenced in this Design Exception is limited to two locations where Picos Road and Minute Maid Road cross over SR 91. A collision with these bridges may potentially cause delays as a result of lanes being closed and debris on the roadway. However, the substandard vertical clearances are an existing condition, therefore no increase in potential adverse impacts on the existing capacity and operation of the facility are anticipated if the vertical clearances are maintained. There are additional design elements that are not in compliance with AASHTO and FDOT criteria, namely shoulder width and cross slope/superelevation, that occur in the vicinity of the areas established for this Design Exception. However, no cumulative effects impacting the operation of the facility are expected. The capacity of the roadway is dependent on the number of lanes and the posted speed limit along the corridor, which will not change after the completion of the proposed improvements. The scope of this project is limited to milling and resurfacing, with the milling depth and resurfacing thickness being the same. There will be no increase in the elevation of the resurfaced pavement, therefore the existing vertical clearances will be maintained. Based on the analysis performed, no long or short term adverse impacts are anticipated on operations, Level of Service, or adjacent roadway sections for the areas identified in this Design Exception, which is expected to be in place through the design life of the project. SR 91 from MM 152 to MM 193 is to be evaluated for widening to by year 2035 which may ultimately impact the bridges at Picos and Minute Maid Roads. A Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study would be required, which will address the vertical clearance deficiency, prior to design and construction. 5.2 Crash History Analysis Safety considerations associated with substandard vertical clearance at the referenced locations are collisions with the bridges, and potential subsequent rear-end crashes. The most recent 5-year crash history from the years 2011 through 2015 was reviewed. The crash data is included in Appendix F of this document. This report covers crash data, field investigations, and assessments of the existing conditions along the corridor. The data provided includes the location of each crash, the type of crash, the date, and the existing conditions. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

12 Vertical Clearance Design Exception FPID Nos: & The analysis of the crash history revealed a total of 376 crashes within the project limits. A review of the crash data revealed that there were no collisions with overhead fixed objects. The maintenance and bridge inspection reports were also reviewed to determine whether any collisions and the possible cost associated with bridge repairs could be found. However, no reported repairs as a result of collisions were found. The analysis further revealed the deficient vertical clearance locations, as identified in this Design Exception, are not on the Turnpike s Top 30 Crash List. 5.3 Costs Cost estimates have been prepared for three alternatives that can eliminate the substandard vertical clearance at the Picos Road and the Minute Maid Bridges. These three options are: reconstruction of the bridges over SR 91, jacking the bridges over SR 91, and reconstructing SR 91 at a lower elevation to achieve the minimum required vertical clearance. The cost estimate for each alternative is included in Appendix G of this document Bridge Reconstruction The reconstruction of the overpass bridges would require an increase in elevation at the critical locations of 9¾ for the Picos Road Bridge, and 7 3/8 for the Minute Maid Road Bridge to meet the FDOT new construction minimum vertical clearance of The approaches to the bridges would have to be improved to accommodate this increase in elevation. The total length of roadway improvements required for both roadways will be 2,385 feet. Additional improvements would also include drainage modifications, embankment, and guardrail replacement. The placement of the required embankment may have impacts on the environmentally sensitive areas adjacent to the roadway. Furthermore, the additional work will impact the maintenance of traffic by increasing the cost and extending the construction duration and disturbance to the FTE consumers. The estimated cost to construct this alternative will be $7,221, Bridge Jacking The Jacking of the overpass bridges would also require an increase in elevation at the critical locations of 9¾ for the Picos Road Bridge, and 7 3/8 for the Minute Maid Road Bridge to meet the FDOT new construction minimum vertical clearance of The approaches to the bridges would have to be improved to accommodate this increase in elevation. The total length of roadway improvements required would be 2,385 feet. Additional improvements would also include drainage modifications, embankment, and guardrail replacement. The placement of the required embankment may have impacts on the environmentally sensitive areas adjacent to the roadway. Furthermore, the additional work will impact the maintenance of traffic by increasing the cost and extending the construction duration and disturbance to the FTE consumers. The estimated cost to construct this alternative will be $2,423, The bridge jacking alternative is not the preferred option given the age of the structures, which were constructed in 1960s, and the significant distance that the bridges would need to be raised. Furthermore, whether jacking equipment can be placed under the beams or temporary towers will be needed, would have to be determined Lowering of SR 91 Northbound SR 91 must be lowered by 9¾ at Picos Road to meet the FDOT new construction minimum vertical clearance of Southbound SR 91 would have to be lowered by 7 3/8 at the Picos Road Bridge, and by 7 7/8 at the Minute Maid Road Bridge. In order to transition the sections of SR 91 to lower elevations at the bridge, 2400 feet mainline roadway would require reconstruction. The additional work will impact the maintenance of traffic by increasing the cost and extending the construction duration and disturbance to the local communities. The estimated cost to construct this alternative will be $869, Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

13 Vertical Clearance Design Exception FPID Nos: & A Benefit/Cost analysis would result in a B/C ratio of zero regardless of which alternative is constructed since there were no crashes found to be attributed to the deficient vertical clearance in the analysis of the most recent 5-year crash history. There are no anticipated social costs associated with the deficient vertical clearance. 5.4 Right-of-Way Impacts Whether any of the Alternative Improvements to correct the vertical clearance deficiencies are implemented or the existing vertical clearances are allowed to remain in place, no right-of-way impacts are anticipated. Picos Road and Minute Maid Road are low volume facilities for which the cost of maintaining traffic at the same location during construction may not be justifiable. For ease of construction and expediting construction time, as well as cost savings, diversion of traffic to other crossings is the most viable option. Even if the traffic is to be maintained at the bridge locations, only temporary construction easements would most likely be required with no permanent right of way acquisition required. 5.5 Community Impacts Since the substandard vertical clearances are an existing condition, no adverse community impacts are expected if the existing vertical clearances are maintained. However, if any of the Alternative Improvements to correct the vertical clearance deficiencies are implemented, the additional work will impact the maintenance of traffic on SR 91, thereby increasing the cost and extending the construction duration of the project. This will ultimately result in additional disturbance to the FTE consumers and the local community using the existing bridges. 5.6 Environmental Impacts With the implementation of any of the Alternative Improvements to correct the vertical clearance deficiencies, there may be impacts on the roadside slopes in the vicinity of the Picos Road and the Minute Maid Road Bridges. Belcher Canal requiring extensive permitting through South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Gopher tortoise burrows were observed which require coordination with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The appropriate habitats must be surveyed during design to confirm whether the burrows are active. If the burrows are impacted, a relocation permit will be required prior to moving the tortoise. Relocation permitting does not typically occur until approximately 90 days prior to the start of construction in the area. Since the substandard vertical clearances are an existing condition, no adverse environmental impacts are expected if the existing vertical clearances are maintained. 5.7 Mitigation To enhance the safety of the current conditions regarding the deficient vertical clearance, advance warning signage was considered for installation to alert the traveling public of the vertical clearance limitation. However, the MUTCD guidelines require the placement of low clearance signs when vertical clearances are less than 12 inches above the statutory maximum vehicle height, which does not apply to the vertical clearance deficiencies identified in this exception. Additional mitigation strategies as outlined in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) publication Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions, dated July 2007, include detours and prohibiting of large vehicles from using the project segment of SR 91 which are infeasible or impractical for application on an interstate facility. There are no associated existing or future limitations as a result of legal or public commitments known for this project. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

14 Vertical Clearance Design Exception FPID Nos: & Alternative Route SR 91 is a Limited Access Expressway on the National Highway System (NHS) and the State Highway System (SHS). The project segment lies between the interchange for SR 70, immediately south of the project, and the SR 60 interchange which is approximately 40 miles to the north of SR 70. The only comparable facility to SR 91 is Interstate 95 which may be accessed at the SR 70 interchange. Interstate 95 diverges from SR 91 going north which does not provide for an ideal alternative route, adding approximately 10 additional miles to the route, but is the only facility that may be used to avoid the low structures. The separation between the interchanges hinders the opportunity to guarantee a viable alternative route that will be effective and potentially utilized by oversized vehicles. 6.0 Summary Conclusions The main objective of the project is to extend the life of the existing pavement through milling and resurfacing of the existing northbound and southbound travel lanes, inside and outside shoulders and the paved median openings. Additional safety related improvements would also be provided along the corridor. The proposed design provides a balance between pavement improvements and vehicular traffic operation while maintaining the safety of the traveling public. The reconstruction of the facilities at Picos Road and Minute Maid Road to achieve a vertical clearance meeting the FDOT new construction criteria would increase the construction cost significantly as well as impacting the construction duration and schedule. Furthermore, FTE s customers would be impacted by the extended construction duration. Increasing the vertical clearance would negatively impact the budget and the schedule, however, since there are no documented collisions with the referenced structures, the benefit/cost ratio for providing the improvements would be zero. No quantifiable benefit in terms of safety, operational performance, or level of service can be derived from implementing the improvements discussed in this report. Furthermore, maintaining the current vertical clearances would eliminate any negative impacts on environmental concerns, community considerations, budget, or schedule. Therefore, the approval of this Design Exception is requested for the two bridge crossings over SR 91 at Picos Road and Minute Maid Road to remain in place without any improvements. Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

15 Vertical Clearance Design Exception PID Nos: & Appendix A Location Map Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

16 6 6 6 ' (6.& 0 1 %! $ $ $! $ $ $ ##$ $ /- 3 5!4$% %06 6 )- 0%-,6 +. 2!/0% * "! /,! #,6 $ $ ##$ $ $ $ $ $ $ "$ ##$ $ $ ##$ $ $ $ $

17 Vertical Clearance Design Exception PID Nos: & Appendix B Typical Sections Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30 Vertical Clearance Design Exception PID Nos: & Appendix C As-Built Plans Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

31 Vertical Clearance Design Exception PID Nos: & Appendix D Photo Log Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

32 Vertical Clearance Design Exception FPID Nos: & Figure 1 Picos Road Over NB SR 91 Figure 2 - Picos Road Over NB SR 91 Figure 3 - Picos Road Over NB SR 91 Figure 4 - Picos Road Over NB SR 91 Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

33 Vertical Clearance Design Exception FPID Nos: & Figure 5 Picos Road Over SB SR 91 Figure 6 - Picos Road Over SB SR 91 Figure 7 Minute Maid Road Over SB SR 91 Figure 8 - Minute Maid Road Over SB SR 91 Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

34 Vertical Clearance Design Exception PID Nos: & Appendix E Traffic Data Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

35

36 Traffic and Revenue Consultant Florida s Turnpike Enterprise Florida Department of Transportation MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Copies: Subject: FPN: State Road: Counties: Typical Section Traffic Data and Equivalent Single Axle Loading (ESAL) Calculations_Update FY 2016 Turnpike Annual Traffic Trends Report AECOM P.O. Box Florida s Turnpike Milepost 263, Building 5315 Ocoee, Florida Tel:

37 Lane Closure Traffic Data Page 2 U.S. DOT Mitigation Strategies for Design Expectations Typical Section Traffic Data and Trucks Directional Design Hour Volume Segment South of Fort Drum Service Plaza (MP 184) Two-Way AADT Traffic Factors Trucks (DDHV) K STD D T 24 (%) DHT (%) ,500 33,900 45, % 60.7% AECOM P.O. Box Florida s Turnpike Milepost 263, Building 5315 Ocoee, Florida Tel:

38 Florida's Turnpike - Ticket System FPN Mainline Resurfacing from MP to MP Mainline - South of Fort Drum Service Plaza Two (2) Lanes Year AADT Lane Factor ESAL CUM-ESAL (1000S) (1000S) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,842 (Daily Truck Factor) T 24 = 14.0% (Directional Distribution Factor) D F = 0.5 (Lane Factor) L F = ( x Ln(One-Way AADT) x LV) (Load Equivalency Factor) EF* = *Freeway - Urban - Flexible Pavement LV = ESAL = AADT x T 24 x D F x L F x EF x year design (Years ) Opening to Mid-Design Year (2025) ESAL Accumulation: 5,198 Opening to Design Year (2032) ESAL Accumulation: 10, year design (Years ) Opening to Mid-Design Year (2028) ESAL Accumulation: 7,587 Opening to Design Year (2038) ESAL Accumulation: 16,148

39 Vertical Clearance Design Exception PID Nos: & Appendix F Crash History Turnpike Mainline (SR 91) Resurfacing and Safety Improvements from MM to MM

40 Exemption from Florida Public Records Section 119, Florida Statutes: The information contained in the Crash Analysis Reporting (C.A.R.) system has been compiled from information collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning safety enhancements. This system and its products identify information used for the purpose of developing highway safety construction improvement projects which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds. Since this information is collected for the above-mentioned purpose it is exempt from disclosure as a public record pursuant to Federal law. Any document displaying this exemption from public records shall be used only for those purposes deemed appropriate by the Department. See Title 23 United States Section 409. Crash Event Crash Date Crsh Loc Final MP On Roadway Turnpike MM First Harmful Event Impact Type Accident Side Of Road Lane Of Accident Road Surface Lighting Event Weather Work Zone Related First Road Alcohol Involved In Acc. Harmful Event Seq 01 Cd Point Of Impact Movement Direction Of Travel First Driver Action Cd Veh #2 Point Of Impact Veh #2 Movement Veh #2 Direction Of Travel Total Of Vehicle Total Of Fatality Total of Injuries /2/ L S S /2/ R N /5/ R S N /6/ R S N /6/ L S S /6/ L E 2 1S /13/ R N N /20/ R S N /30/ L S /13/ R S N /18/ L S 21 6 S /21/ L S S /27/ R S N /5/ L S S /9/ L S S /9/ L S S /14/ R N N /16/ R S N /17/ M M S S /17/ R N N /22/ M M S /10/ L S 7 1S /15/ L S /27/ L S S /1/ R S N /7/ R S N /13/ R N N /22/ R N /24/ L S S /30/ L S S /3/ L S S /5/ M M S N /12/ R S N /23/ M M S /26/ L S S /26/ L S S /30/ L S S /21/ R N N /22/ L S S /24/ L S S /4/ L S S /7/ L S S

41 Crash Event Crash Date Crsh Loc Final MP On Roadway Turnpike MM First Harmful Event Impact Type Accident Side Of Road Lane Of Accident Road Surface Lighting Event Weather Work Zone Related First Road Alcohol Involved In Acc. Harmful Event Seq 01 Cd Point Of Impact Movement Direction Of Travel First Driver Action Cd Veh #2 Point Of Impact Veh #2 Movement Veh #2 Direction Of Travel Total Of Vehicle Total Of Fatality Total of Injuries /13/ R N N /25/ M M N /2/ M M N /16/ L N S /22/ R N N /26/ L S S /1/ M M N /6/ R N N /8/ R N /13/ L S S /15/ L S S /18/ L S S /22/ R S N /31/ M M S /3/ L S S /16/ L S S S /16/ R N N /27/ L S S /5/ R S N /10/ R N N /15/ L X S /16/ L S S /22/ R S N /24/ R S N /27/ L S S /1/ L S S /2/ R N N /8/ M M N N /14/ L S S /15/ R N /11/ L S 13 1 S /15/ R S N /17/ R N 3 1 N /1/ L S /2/ R N N /6/ R S N N /29/ L S S /29/ L S S /16/ R S N 4 1 N /22/ L S S /27/ M M S /27/ R S N /9/ L N S /14/ R N N /15/ M M N /26/ L S S /29/ R N 1 1 1N /31/ L S S /15/ R S N

42 Crash Event Crash Date Crsh Loc Final MP On Roadway Turnpike MM First Harmful Event Impact Type Accident Side Of Road Lane Of Accident Road Surface Lighting Event Weather Work Zone Related First Road Alcohol Involved In Acc. Harmful Event Seq 01 Cd Point Of Impact Movement Direction Of Travel First Driver Action Cd Veh #2 Point Of Impact Veh #2 Movement Veh #2 Direction Of Travel Total Of Vehicle Total Of Fatality Total of Injuries /28/ R N 11 1 N /2/ R S N /4/ L S S /13/ L S S /13/ L S N /15/ R N /16/ R N N /20/ R S N /29/ L S /29/ L S /7/ M M N /7/ L S S /11/ L S /17/ L S S S /17/ R S N /21/ R N /25/ R S N /1/ L S S /8/ L S /13/ R S N /14/ L S S /15/ R S N /29/ M M S /30/ R S N N /1/ M M N /4/ L S S S /8/ M M N /11/ R N N /12/ L S S /13/ L S /21/ L S S /26/ M M N /7/ R N N /7/ L S S /11/ R S N /22/ R N N /22/ M M S 13 1 S /31/ R S N /2/ R N /3/ R S N /17/ R N N /20/ M M S /21/ L S S /22/ M M S /25/ M M S /28/ M M N /5/ R S N N /23/ R N N /23/ R S N